PURPOSE: To compare the dose distribution of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) to left chest wall. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and seven patients were randomised for PMRT in 3DCRT group (n = 64) and IMRT group (n = 43). All patients received 50 Gy in 25 fractions. Planning target volume (PTV) parameters—Dnear-max (D2), Dnear-min (D98), Dmean, V95, and V107—homogeneity index (HI), and conformity index (CI) were compared. The mean doses of lung and heart, percentage volume of ipsilateral lung receiving 5 Gy (V5), 20 Gy (V20), and 55 Gy (V55) and that of heart receiving 5 Gy (V5), 25 Gy (V25), and 45 Gy (V45) were extracted from dose-volume histograms and compared. RESULTS: PTV parameters were comparable between the two groups. CI was significantly improved with IMRT (1.127 vs. 1.254, p < 0.001) but HI was similar (0.094 vs. 0.096, p = 0.83) compared to 3DCRT. IMRT in comparison to 3DCRT significantly reduced the high-dose volumes of lung (V20, 22.09% vs. 30.16%; V55, 5.16% vs. 10.27%; p < 0.001) and heart (V25, 4.59% vs. 9.19%; V45, 1.85% vs. 7.09%; p < 0.001); mean dose of lung and heart (11.39 vs. 14.22 Gy and 4.57 vs. 8.96 Gy, respectively; p < 0.001) but not the low-dose volume (V5 lung, 61.48% vs. 51.05%; V5 heart, 31.02% vs. 23.27%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: For left sided breast cancer, IMRT significantly improves the conformity of plan and reduce the mean dose and high-dose volumes of ipsilateral lung and heart compared to 3DCRT, but 3DCRT is superior in terms of low-dose volume.
Breast Neoplasms ; Heart ; Humans ; Lung ; Mastectomy, Modified Radical ; Radiometry ; Radiotherapy ; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated ; Thoracic Wall ; Thorax ; Unilateral Breast Neoplasms

Purpose: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) provides higher dose to target volumes and limits the dose to normal tissues. IMRT may be applied using either simultaneous integrated boost (SIB-IMRT) or sequential boost (SEQ-IMRT) technique. The objectives of this study were to compare acute toxicity and objective response rates between SIB-IMRT and SEQ-IMRT in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer. Materials and Methods: Total 110 patients with locally advanced carcinoma of oropharynx, hypopharynx, and larynx were randomized equally into the two arms (SIB-IMRT vs. SEQ-IMRT). Patients in SIB-IMRT arm received dose of 66 Gy in 30 fractions, 5 days a week, over 6 weeks. SEQ-IMRT arm’s patients received 70 Gy in 35 fractions over 7 weeks. Weekly concurrent cisplatin chemotherapy was given in both arms. Patients were assessed for acute toxicities during the treatment and for objective response at 3 months after the radiotherapy. Results: Grade 3 dysphagia was significantly more with SIB-IMRT compared to SEQ-IMRT (72% vs. 41.2%; p = 0.006) but other toxicities including mucositis, dermatitis, xerostomia, weight-loss, incidence of nasogastric tube intubation and hospitalization for supportive management were similar in both the arms. Patients in SIB-IMRT arm showed better treatment-compliance and had significantly less treatment-interruption compared to SEQ-IMRT arm (p = 0.028). Objective response rates were similar in both the arms (p = 0.783). Conclusion Concurrent chemoradiation with SIB-IMRT for locally advanced head and neck cancer is well-tolerated and results in better treatment-compliance, similar objective response rates, comparable incidence of mucositis and higher incidence of grade 3 dysphagia compared to SEQ-IMRT.

Purpose: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) provides higher dose to target volumes and limits the dose to normal tissues. IMRT may be applied using either simultaneous integrated boost (SIB-IMRT) or sequential boost (SEQ-IMRT) technique. The objectives of this study were to compare acute toxicity and objective response rates between SIB-IMRT and SEQ-IMRT in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer. Materials and Methods: Total 110 patients with locally advanced carcinoma of oropharynx, hypopharynx, and larynx were randomized equally into the two arms (SIB-IMRT vs. SEQ-IMRT). Patients in SIB-IMRT arm received dose of 66 Gy in 30 fractions, 5 days a week, over 6 weeks. SEQ-IMRT arm’s patients received 70 Gy in 35 fractions over 7 weeks. Weekly concurrent cisplatin chemotherapy was given in both arms. Patients were assessed for acute toxicities during the treatment and for objective response at 3 months after the radiotherapy. Results: Grade 3 dysphagia was significantly more with SIB-IMRT compared to SEQ-IMRT (72% vs. 41.2%; p = 0.006) but other toxicities including mucositis, dermatitis, xerostomia, weight-loss, incidence of nasogastric tube intubation and hospitalization for supportive management were similar in both the arms. Patients in SIB-IMRT arm showed better treatment-compliance and had significantly less treatment-interruption compared to SEQ-IMRT arm (p = 0.028). Objective response rates were similar in both the arms (p = 0.783). Conclusion Concurrent chemoradiation with SIB-IMRT for locally advanced head and neck cancer is well-tolerated and results in better treatment-compliance, similar objective response rates, comparable incidence of mucositis and higher incidence of grade 3 dysphagia compared to SEQ-IMRT.